(a couple more thoughts that occurred to me while getting ready to head for the gym -- and i apologize for this clearly being OT for this mailing list, but hey, someone else started it ... :-) the more i think about it, the less i see how red hat can keep people from using the name "red hat linux". first, as i mentioned before, if red hat's position is that the name "red hat linux" refers specifically and precisely to not just the software but to the support inherent in that software when someone buys an official set, what is the name by which we can then refer to the contents of the CDs themselves? red hat itself confuses the issue since, if you choose to download a copy of the OS from their own web site, it states quite clearly on the download page that you're downloading "Red Hat Linux 8.0". even though a download has no official support, the company itself refers to the download by that official name, clearly contradicting their legal position. further, if i download and install the contents of those CD images, what exactly am i running? can i officially say i'm running "red hat linux" if i don't have the official support? there's zillions of web sites out there claiming to be "powered by red hat linux". are they really? is red hat planning on taking legal action against them if those are just downloaded OSes without the official support? and finally, it's well-established that, if you don't protect your trademark, you risk losing it. so an obvious question to ask is, is red hat protecting their trademark? i submit that, based on the above, not only are they not protecting their trademark, *they* have diluted it for the following simple reason. i'm typing this on a system with a downloaded copy of red hat 8.0. immediately after installation, before i made *any* changes to system, when i logged in at a virtual console, i was greeted with "Red Hat Linux release 8.0 (Psyche) ..." as you can see, the OS *itself* identifies itself as red hat linux. if i want more proof, i can $ cat /etc/redhat-release which identifies itself exactly the same way. in every possible way, red hat *itself* is calling what i'm running "red hat linux", despite the fact that i did not buy a boxed set and i have no support. thus, i contend that red hat has already diluted the trademark to the point of worthlessness. it would seem difficult for red hat to argue that a downloaded copy of the OS is not "red hat linux" when the company itself refers to it by exactly that name. anyway, IANAL, so i'd be interested in hearing other perspectives on this. and now, off to spin class. vroom, vroom. rday
